"Deeply Disturbing"

[atcea.com]

Has this near-miss (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1686922005) been discussed here? Looks like it was a "squeeker".

For those of us who don't know, how are military aircraft handled in the U.K.? Two seperate ATC systems, right?

[flowman]

Only a matter of time.
Those hawk trainers are a menace and should not be allowed anywhere near civil airspace.
I used to work at a unit where they came to practice approaches.
The clearance after the missed approach was nearly always to FL90. They nearly always called passing FL150 on the way up asking to QSY. It became something we expected to happen.
I got the impression some of those guys were strapped to a rocket and were just along for the ride.
Are these flights always conducted with an instructor or are they solo?

[Number2]

I heard that the Hawks saw the aircraft - problem over in my book!

[rej]

remember that one man's airprox is another man's sighting and vice versa

[NorthSouth]

so why did the Hawk pilots report it and the RAF call it "deeply disturbing" then?

What I'm wondering is why the RAF say it would have been avoided if the Hawks had been squawking. At those heights their primary would have easily showed up on Scottish's radar so how come the controller didn't vector the FlyBe round them - or give tfc info if on a RIS?

NS

[Pierre Argh]

atcea.com

it's not a case of two systems per se... what you must remember is that it sounds like the incident happened in unregulated (Class G presumably) airspace. The incidence of manoeuvring military aircraft encountering scheduled GAT in Class G is a fact of life in the UK... but both aircraft have a right to be there, the military enjoying freedom to manoeuvre... the civil the economic benefit of fuel savings. Users of this airspace (should) know the risks and their responsibilities... and if they're not prepared to accept in retreat to within established regulated airspace.

Surely, if this is a case of late sighting (as it sounds) both crews must be responsible?

[5milesbaby]

If the a/c were above FL100 then doesn't the ANO state the operation of a transponder is mandatory? I'm guessing that a Dash 8-400 off EGNT would be above FL100 in Scottish A/s enroute Belfast. If the transponders on both were working with Mode C then TCAS would have highlighted the problem and probably solved the conflict.

NorthSouth, if there was clutter on the radar or other tracks in the vicinity then maybe the primary track wasn't picked up.

[spekesoftly]

Those hawk trainers are a menace and should not be allowed anywhere near civil airspace.

The report clearly states:-
The Flybe flight was en route between Newcastle and Belfast on 27 October when the incident happened shortly after 3:40pm in uncontrolled airspace
Are these flights always conducted with an instructor or are they solo?

Again from the report:-
The Hawks, based at RAF Valley in North Wales, were on a close-formation training exercise, with a student flying with an instructor in the leading aircraft and another student flying solo in the second.

Are you suggesting that student pilots should not be permitted to fly solo? On this occassion it was the students that spotted the Dash 8 first, and warned their instructor.



What I'm wondering is why the RAF say it would have been avoided if the Hawks had been squawking.

I suggest this is a reference to TCAS fitted to the Dash 8, which, had the Hawk's transponder been functioning, could have triggered a TA, giving the Dash Pilots earlier warning, and an RA, if required, to help them avoid.



If the a/c were above FL100 then doesn't the ANO state the operation of a transponder is mandatory?

The ANO does not apply to Military Aircraft. However, the report suggests that the Hawk's transponder was either inadvertently switched off, or became unserviceable.

[Jetstream Rider]

Does the Dash have TCAS? The turboprop I used to fly didn't. The Hawk certainly hasn't got it. In fact they have absloutely terrible nav kit. The guys who fly them do a good job generally given what they have, ie no radar, no proper nav kit and only a pair of eyes and a stopwatch. I think the RAF should provide them with some better nav kit and stuff like TCAS as it would make the sky safer. You can always turn it off when you don't want the student playing with it - in the right circumstances of course.

[5milesbaby]

Yes, the FlyBe Dash 8 - 400's do have TCAS. Doesn't European Regulations now state that all pax flights operating above FL100 HAVE to carry TCAS? I know the French have REFUSED entry due to inoperative TCAS. Someone with better knowledge will no doubt answer that soon.

[Airdrop Charlie]

It all depends what Air Traffic Service the ac were receiving. It is quite possible the mil ac were on on a FIS - but even then the mil controller has a responsibility for calling conflicting traffic if he feels there is a definite risk of collision! What was the controller at SCATCC doing with the Flybe ac? There is not enough info in the press report to make an informed judgement. Ultimately, civil ac flying off route outside controlled airspace will always run the risk of 'seeing' other ac, mil or civil, as the whole point of that airspace is to allow the aviation fraternity freedom of manoeuvre! Civil airlines electing to fly off route have to accept these risks. I used to control the Brymans Heathrow to Newquay with a RAS, we endeavoured to maintain standard seperation and the captain inevitably would call 'Happy to continue' after half a dozen avoiding actions - spills the passengers drinks don't you know!

[Cuddles]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, it's only a matter of time.

I just hope to God that it's a matter of an awful lot of time.

[NorthSouth]

Too many unknowns to judge from the press report, as you say Airdrop C, so I look forward to seeing the primary source. My big questions are:
1) Hawks apparently getting a service from Swanwick Mil; why did controller not ask Hawks to squawk? if no squawk, had they been identified? And if so, how come mil controller didnt see the confliction with the Dash 8?
2) If Scottish controller didnt see the Hawks due toclutter on the radar or other tracks in the vicinityshouldn't he have limited the service? That might have prompted the Dash 8 crew to focus more on lookout.

This one's sure to have a direct bearing on the current review of ATSOCAS and on the CAA's much-criticised policy of saying that the risks to public transport flights are just "different" outside CAS, rather than greater.

NS (with terrible sense of deja vu)

[3legs]

The board was also told that while the Hawk pilots were in contact with military air traffic controllers in Hampshire, Flybe pilots were in contact with civilian controllers at Prestwick.


Am I missing somthing here or is it too early in the morning!! So the Military choose to use controllers at the other end of the country? Hmm What frequencies do they use I wonder? IS there not a nearer controlling centre where they could get a better picture on what is going on? Or maybe talk to Civil controllers...

I know its Class G airspace but if two hawks are flying so close togehter there needs to be someone else watching out for them. It is a training mission and they will be concentrating on flying close together and i guess looking out to the side more so than ahead....:confused: Scarey at 7 miles per minute!

Just a few thoughts...Feel free to correct me or shoot me down!:uhoh:

Cheers

3Legs :ok:

[eyeinthesky]

IS there not a nearer controlling centre where they could get a better picture on what is going on?

Yes I think it is too early in the morning!

Funny as it may seem, we don't actually need to look out of the window to control the traffic! The wonders of modern science such as datalink mean we can look at a radar picture anywhere we like. So the fact that the controllers were sitting in Hampshire has no bearing on their ability to control traffic in north England.

[daveandferdy]

I think the post from Flowman is bang out of order.

These Hawk Pilots are the future of our air defense. They are pilots who have been selected by the RAF and are considered the absolute best potential pilots in the RAF. The reason they are flying Hawks out of RAF Valley is that they have been chosen to be trained to fly the most advanced aircraft in the RAF, such as Tornados, Harriers, Typhoons and such like.

The RAF flying training programmes are surely to be considered among the most advanced and thorough training programmes in aviation, with instructors being exceptionally skilled and diligent in thier training methods.

To simply refer to them as being a 'menace', is a disrespectful and ill-founded opinion.

It seems that both parties should share the blame here, neither appeared to have been paying enough attention to the uncontrolled airspace.

What would have been your view Flowman if both aircraft had been civilian? Who would have been a menace in that situation?

It was uncontrolled airspace, where military aircraft are free to transit amd manouvre. If the civilian aircraft don't want to be 'menaced' by them, stay in controlled airspace. Their decision to fly in uncontrolled airspace is purley driven by money...... which says everything.

[BDiONU]

atcea.com

There are not two seperate systems, Mil & Civil, at Swanwick. Its one room and one system. Civil/military integration is due to get even closer in the UK over the next few years as we go from 4 Area Control Centres to 2.


Flowman

Hawks are not a menace, military aircraft are not a menace. If you fly outside of CAS then its see and be seen. If you don't want to look out then file a route inside of CAS, otherwise keep your eyes open.

BD

[vector4fun]

Gee,

I'm surprised some Yank pilots haven't already observed that if the British would only use US style procedures, MOAs, and learn to drive on the right side of the road, these things would never happen.....

[/sarcasm] :yuk:

[flowman]

Daveandferdy you might think "the post from flowman is bang out of order", but it was based on personal experience . I was not referring specifically to the incident mentioned by the thread starter.
I have 14 years of TWR/APC and Radar experience of working at a unit combining civil and military traffic. I am very well aware of operational differences. I have the utmost respect for military pilots. I am also well aware of the selection processes involved, also that a large proportion of trainees don't make it to the end.
It seems the powers that be in the military agreed with my view, after a series of similar clearance violations and subsequent complaints the aerodrome concerned was no longer used by Hawks for training.
It continued to be used by operational military pilots with no such problems, although all confessed that it was a strange environment for them to fly in that required a large degree of adaptation.
My comment was certainly not "ill founded".
Yours, on the other hand appears to come from someone who has just been watching a Blue Peter special on the RAF

[daveandferdy]

Flowman,

Perhaps if you had managed to express your opinion more clearly in the first instance, instead of making a sweeping and inane comment about Hawk trainers being a menace, then the need for you to defend your original post would not have arisen.........

As for the Blue Peter reference........ very constructive, well done.

[Pierre Argh]

Cuddles

You say it's only a matter of time I guess that could be the conclusion of any risk assessment?

It may not leave you feeling comfortable, but such encounters in the open FIR happen. In most cases written down to inadequate look-out... You probably know that close calls happen within Controlled Airspace too (Civil/Civil and Civil/Military). Aviation is a risky business, which strives for a safety holy grail... however the only way to guarantee a perfect flight safety record is stay on the ground!

Like you I hope it never happens, and the reality is it probably never will... but?

[ATCO Fred]

:eek: For those who can, try and get a copy of the latest Mil ATC Journal and take a look at the article written by OC LATCC Mil. He had a jump seat ride with one of the major operators of commercial traffic in class G from Norwich to Newcastle and back.

Disturbing is a word I would use to describe the look out (or more accurately the lack of) displayed by the crew throughout the flight, who seemed to treat it just like any other flight in CAS!!

So here's the dilemma. We have a shared asset, unique in Europe (the world?) where it is inevitable that we are going to get in each others way every once in a while. To avoid this you need to have a working knowledge of the classification of the airspace in which you are flying, and know who's responsible for collision avoidance.

Alternatively, take a moment to review previous UKAB reports. On many occasions the CATP pilot reports receiving service A when the ATC tapes prove it was service B. Sometimes, they even think they are in receipt of a Radar Control Service.

The burden of risk is pushed from the operators on to the service providers – this is wrong. But training cost money, anyway why bother when you can blame someone else.

ATCO Fred

ATCO Liberation Society!
:hmm:

[SID East]

I hear in about 10 years time the "Open FIR" as we know it will be no more, with ALL UK airspace above FL100 Controlled or at least designated Mandatory Radar Service Area and a few designated military play areas. I understand that this is pretty much the case in other countries now. Is this true and if so do these problems not occur?

Whist of course the military have to be able to exercise tactical freedom and all that business in the defence of the UK I am afraid that we have to be somewhat realistic. I'm sure the current structure of uncontrolled airspace in the UK worked well in the cold war days when I dare say military aircraft far outnumbered the civil aircraft. The current growth in civil aviation compared to the relative decline in military flying means that changes are needed and these will have to be in favour of the civvies. I understand the CAA is at least starting a review now.

In the meantime I pray to god that a collision of this sort does not happen. I doubt the image of the RAF / UK forces would easily recover from an incident where nearly 50 civilians die in a mid-air collision with a military aircraft where the crew might well eject to safety and live to tell the tale. Not the best scenario for military aircrew or any controller to be in spite of any legal matters or not.

The Hawk is not a well equipped aircraft in terms of kit, be it Nav, Transponder or much else on the technology front. It is a 30-year-old aircraft that does the job it needs to do but struggles to fit in with today’s air traffic environment. Even when it comes to airways flying and joining procedures the aircrew are most likely best guessing reporting points etc. on Tacan Ranges and bearings with no VOR DME to rely on. They might have a handheld GPS if you’re lucky. I have witnessed aircraft which subsequently turned out to be Hawks spinning in airways, getting within 2 miles and 200 feet of airliners flying in airways where they would not even expect to see a military jet engaged in general handling. Despite the high calibre of our military aviators a u/s or unreliable Tacan, strong wing and high-energy manoeuvres are all that is needed. I know this particular incident occurred outside of CAS but nevertheless I think it pertinent to mention - we need to give the crews the kit they need before they need it!

This subject really worries me. I hope that the powers that be really do see this one coming, as I would hate to be thinking back to this thread in the event of a serious incident.

SID

:ugh:

[Empty Cruise]

SID E,

Yes, as you stated - pretty much bog std. on the continent (at least above FL195/95). MIL trg is conducted in TSA's where they are a bit out of the way - or in class E airspace with RIS as minimum + activity notam'ed.

The only times I have had "pop-up" mil traffic on TCAS was in UK class G airspace, under RIS from London MIL. The MATCO certainly did not know about the formation in advance - the poor chap just called "Pop-up tfc you 11 o'clock, 5 miles, advise break hard right" 2 seconds later, we had them on TCAS, but only as a TA, no where near an RA. When we saw them coming out of the cloud layer below, the were already manoeuvring to avoid - so no sweat - except from the poor MATCO who did sound a little miffed at the time :}

I understand that both the MIL and GA can benefit from having vast streches of class G at their disposal - but I think that there is a reason why the UK is "unique" in having this system. I enjoy using class G responsibly when soaring or taking the missus for a spin - but I must admit that when I look at the issue through professional glasses, I'm all for the airborne equivalent of the "Pave the Planet" group :p :D I think class D should start around 100 ft. AGL - and just think of all the new ATCO jobs it would generate ;)

Brgds fm
Empty

[Scott Voigt]

Make it all class E airspace and some of the problem might be solved <G>...

regards

Scott

[aluminium persuader]

I read (in Flight, I think) that the new Hawk will have TCAS and autopilot to ease the load. Obviously, the former will help enormously to prevent these sort of situations from occuring in the future.

The playing-field will never really be level, of course, until they are equipped with stewardesses!



;)

[Widger]

First, there is no such thing as civil airspace.

Nuff said.

Once established in clear airspace in VMC they were operating on a quiet frequency and were thus not is receipt of any ATS at the time of the Airprox.

the controller passed traffic information on a primary contact at 12 o’clock but no height information was given. They looked up but saw nothing, to be told immediately thereafter that the traffic was behind them.

So they were obviously not looking out of the window in class G. See ATCO Fred's post.



he saw a primary ‘pop-up’ contact 1nm due W of the DHC8 - the Hawk pair.


But....



elected to terminate the ATS and continue VFR for his formation training. Thereafter the Hawks are displayed as a single primary contact, thus no Mode C data is displayed at all suggesting the transponder either failed or was switched off from this point.


and



at this point the Hawk pair are crossing from L – R in their R turn through the DHC8 crew’s 12 o’clock at a range of 6nm.


So they were obviously NOT "pop up" contacts. (good term to use for a late spot however!)



XXXX had included within their report [from the XXXXs own investigation report] that as no Mode A or C was visible from the Hawks the XXXX SC had assumed that this traffic was below FL100. The XXXX advisor considered that this assumption that the primary target representing the Hawks was probably 6000ft below his traffic was not unreasonable.


So it still isn't a "pop up" then. At least he had primary radar selected though!

it was pointed out that the extant strict company policy of the civilian ATS provider is that they will not provide a RAS in Class G airspace whatsoever, thus a RIS was all that was available from the XXXX SC even if the crew had asked for a RAS.

Well if you are all so concerned about safety etc. Why are you not up in arms about this stupid policy that protects no-one but the (paid up union member) who can hide behind the fact that he was only providing a RIS.




As it was, both the DHC8 and the Hawk leader were equally responsible for seeing and avoiding each other’s ac, with or without the assistance of an ATS. Members noted that the DHC8 crew did not see the pair of Hawks throughout the encounter.


So the bottom line is...if you are going to take your fare paying passengers through Class G, under an imposed RIS (where an alternative exists)..make sure you Bl**dy well look out of the window!

[Ivor Fynn]

Widger,

Well said my old, far to many airlines are taking the added risk of flying outside CAS without thinking about the consequences. A few airline pilots may do well to read exactly what service is provided under RIS or RAS.

Doesn't matter which service you are recieving you need to keep your eyes out.

Ivor

:cool:

[clicker]

Although this does not appear to be a factor on this occassion, one phase I hear often from military controllers is "Limited information due poor radar performance”. This is at both at airfields and from Swanwick/London Mil.

While I’m a civvie ops controller, rather than a service user, it does seem to me that as well as improving the Hawks nav kit we should also ensure the ground based equipment is up to a higher standard to make certain possible conflicts are seen well in advance.

[SID East]

Clicker,

In my experience the limitations of radar performance are more to do with the laws of physics rather than the state of the equipment.

For instance; no matter how up to date your radar equipment you will never see things obscured by high ground (mountains) or at lower levels when at range from the radar head - ie. beyond the physical limits of radar itself.

This is the reason for the military art of low flying where surface to air missile threats employ the same principles of radar for detection.

Although I have no experience of Civil Radar Systems I believe the military terminal radars are actually considered to be quite good. They have high levels of processing and lots of features some civil users might consider to be Gucci!

Even with hundreds of individual radar heads overlapping throughout the country and available (linked) to all users there will still always be black spots. This would be more akin to how they work at Area Radar Units but it would seem that this is not really an issue that can be easily solved on the ground.

Of course there is still an ongoing update for ground equipment in the UK, in this and other cases however, the airborne equipment element (TCAS) is probably the quickest and easiest fix.

SID


:ok:

[Maude Charlee]

Whilst not aiming the following remarks at the crews involved (as I have no idea of their background/experience), I suppose in some respect this is inevitable when airlines routinely take young and inexperienced pilots straight from flight school, where their only experience is that gained during a very short and limited flying syllabus. Lookout is a skill they only practice at the start of that syllabus, as the latter stages are IFR and spent sitting behind screens.


Good lookout skills take time to develop, and the RHS of a commercial airliner is not the place to start. Fast moving mil traffic is incredibly hard to spot, and even more so when you have poor (or even no) 'heads up' info on their presence. If more pilots spent even a short time working in GA before moving on to the airlines, then incidents of this nature may be more avoidable as the lookout becomes totally instinctive and a part of the basic skills from which everything else follows.

[Iron City]

Reference was made earlier in the thread to some Yank posting and telling people to do it the Yank way with MOAs, drive on the right side of the road etc. I'll take the bait (sort of)

Regardless of the MOAs around there are still MIL a/c mixed into airspace with civil a/c (there is really no MIL airspace in the US, it is all owned by the FAA and some is loaned to the MIL for use, though to talk to ssome of them you'd think it is theirs, they do)

The MOAs are restricted airspace, clearly marked on charts and the most exciting of flying is done in them. If they are not in use they can be transited by civil a/c in radio contact with the controlling authority. There are still a lot of MIL a/c operating outside of MOAs. The rule is that they will operate just like everyone else using the airspace and the procedures and ATC practices are the same. WRT uncontrolled airspace I have had the experience of encountering MIL a/c in uncontrolled airspace while flying light a/c. Both were at low altitude in the east coast. First was a flight of 2 C-130s on an Oil Burner (oops Olive Branch) route at about 2,000 AGL. In this airspace there is no practical radar service (you can monitor center and request advisories if you like but it is tough to get a word in edgewise). I saw the first a/c in time to avoid but didn't see the second though I was looking because they travel in pairs in a loose formation and the routes are marked on the VFR sectional charts, though it is difficult for a individual GA pilot to get information on whether there is current activity. The second case was several attack helicopters at similar altitude and it was problematic to find them visually even with all their navigation and position lights going because of their paint jobs. Needless to say I avoided them or they avoided me because I am alive to write this. It was more likely them seeing me because after the C-130s excitement I adopted the practice of always running with the landing light on when doing airwork in the area and doing it in places away from the Olive Branch routes.

It would seem reasonable to require all aircraft to have and use a transponder above a certain altitude (and 10K feet is as good a number as any). This fixes the ATC doesn't know where they are problem as well as the use of TCAS problem.

The requirement to keep a lookout and follow VFR in VMC is basic, but sadly not practiced in many operations.

HM Forces should practice and aspire to a level of airmanship that will keep them out of conflict with the other airspace users in Class M, though it would be great if that level could be expected of the other users it is, sadly, unlikely.

There. And nothing said about you guys driving on the wrong side of the road.

[Scott Voigt]

One slight correction to Iron City. MOA (Military Operating Areas) are not restricted areas (we do have areas that are called that though.), they are instead areas where we do not take IFR aircraft through when they are in use. They are also marked on sectionals and IFR charts and VFR aircraft are strongly encouraged to NOT fly through them when they are in use, however, it is not something that we can keep them from doing. The same for areas known as Alert areas which are also marked and are areas that folks use for military flight training and are doing general flight manuvers and not air to air stuff.

regards

Scott

[Pierre Argh]

Quart into a pint pot... or to be PC, should that be Litre into a 500ml liquid container?

We have (fewer now) Mil. Training Airspace's in the Upper Air that sounds similar to that they have Stateside as described above by SV... and AiAAs and other reservations below that. I doubt DAP would tolerate setting aside much more airspace for military use... even if not for their exclusive use. Fact is the UK is a small landmass over which lots of people want to commit aviation... and all have their own sense of priority. To mis-quote one of my teachers from years ago...

"When all demand complete priority none has any"